Or women are more likely to in caring roles like nursing, aged care and teaching where they are more likely to experience violence. I've read somewhere that people in caring-type roles experience a lot of physical violence. Logically they are more likely to be dealing with people on drugs, in pain or in distress, people who are more likely to lash out at others. Also, unlike the police or armed forces, most of these carers would be unarmed. Additionally, unlike the armed forces, most carers are not going to be carrying some form of weapon or have the kind of training needed to take down a person unarmed.

So you want to be treated equally except when you are it suits you? Wait, you're putting yourself forward as a representative of feminism? Yeah, fuck that. Please stop speaking for me, you're just confirming some of the worst stereotypes about feminists.

Actually, that's a major concern within the feminist movement at the moment- how do you define feminism when you link it to choice? Before my previous computer crashed I had more than a handful of article from feminists discussing the exact same question. In fact, if you're willing to do a bit of digging, I think, in response to Sarah Palin calling herself a feminist, Slate hosted a debate amongst prominant feminist in which they tried to tackle this exact issue.

Women are not mindless. That kind of emotional over-reaction annoys pretty much anyone. Some people are just better at telling those kind of people to either chill the fuck down or to back the fuck off. The rest of us just plaster a fake smile onto our faces and nod when necessary.

According to wikipedia: "Leslie is President of Reproductive Choice Australia, a national coalition of pro-choice organisations that played a key role in removing the ban on the abortion drug RU486 in 2006 and of Pro Choice Victoria, which was instrumental in the decriminalisation of abortion in Victoria in 2008. She is a Dying with Dignity ambassador for law reform.[14] In 2011 she co-founded the not-for-profit speaker referral site No Chicks No Excuses.[15]"

Her referranl site, 'No Chicks No Excuses', along with her name, lists Catherine Deveny, Australian feminist, and Jane Caro as co-founders.

Yeah, don't really like what Gail Dines has to say. She presumes that all pornography is degrading, violent and misogynistic while ignoring the existance of pornography labelled feminist. I'm not alone on this either- other feminists, mostly sex-positive feminists and women involved with sex workers rights, really don't like her anti-porn stance.

Although, ironically, Dines, along with fellow feminist and author of Quiverfull Wendy J. Murphy, because the term slut is so deeply embedded in the Maddona/whore dictonomy that she believes it can never be used positively.

Then, please, link to the post on the blog so that it provides context for your statement than just associating it with the term patriarchy. Otherwise it seems like you're just throwing together any number of feminist terms in order to sensationalise.

(1) Groskop presumes that men aren't dropping off or pick up children to/from school, pre-school or childcare; that the problems with parenting are solely limited to women, that men don't struggle with finding a place to change their children, to bottle feed, that men struggle with transporting children in places not intended to deal with strollers or buggies. In addition it ignores trans men, who might be pregnant, breast feed or menstuate; men out with their pregnant partner, who might experience frustration when she is uncomfortable because the facilities suck; shorter men, less muscular men, disabled men, men who are ill and children of all ages, who might still experience the same problems caused by a town designed for able bodies, tall, muscular men.

(2) OThomson: What Groskop is talking about is based off research conducted by Dr. Gemma Burgess, of Cambridge University, to the Royal Geography Society, so this isn't just a couple of feminists bitching about how hard women have it. While I haven't read the report, I presume that there must be some sort of evidence supporting the arguments the author has made. If you're confunded, I suggest rereading the article with an open mind. Also, there was no mention of the partiarchy, nor did the author within the article identify as a feminist. As you would well know, you don't need to be a feminist to be interested in equality. To label this as 'feminist claim that city building is a patriarchal conspiracy' is to be inflammatory.

(3) In generaly: the article argued that, because all town planners and architects were men, they have ignored that women and men differ biologically and, as such, they have made certain presumptions when designing buildings, towns and cities. One of the examples given is the replacement of seats at train stations with sloping seats designed for a 6 foot 6 man. While some of these complaints are based on the presumption that all women are solely responsible for caring for children, the other discussion points are based in the biological difference between men and women.